User talk:Wisdom89/Archive 4

Question

What is the difference (IE-on the Rush page) between people asking if Rush (or Geddy) is Jewish and discussing this fact and my question (hoping to start a discussion) regarding why Rush places in their liner notes (brought to you by the album "A"? Dantali (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought

Hi Wisdom. As you no doubt remember I opposed your last RFA (and caused an element of those horrible "Per Pedro" comments - sorry!). Now, I think that you really would benefit from admin buttons, but it's too soon to run again. Can I help at all in a bit of coaching towards your next RFA? You are doing a great job, and I really admire your work. Let me know, either way. Pedro : Chat 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk. Pedro : Chat 00:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Peart

I picked Neil Peart as the first selected article in the new percussion portal. Your work is appreciated (by me, anyway :)) Kakofonous (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the compliment, I'll visit the portal and take a looksy. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

If you are interested, I answered the question on my RFA concerning the username reports. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Speedy deletion

Thanks for the notice. I will keep that in mind (and sorry for my ignorance. I'm new here so I don't know too much). --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

afd's

Hi. I noticed your recent afd nominations and I would like to suggest that you nominate the album articles of the band and singer articles that you nominate. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I was planning on doing that, thanks though. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules and Regulations is an album by Roll Deep. So maybe nominate them together per WP:BUNDLE? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Card

My RFA →→→

Dear Wisdom89, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (29/5/5).

I completly understand why you voted neutral and I'm quite happy that you did not vote oppose. And now that I am a sysop, I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — Chetblong^{T C} 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nousernamesleft

Hi, Wisdom89, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, ~~tough~~ feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't even vaguely resemble a mop, but I couldn't find a picture of one.

I'll try to participate more in things you mentioned from now on. Thanks for the advice. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it! I forgot to make a remark about the wisdom of your oppose. ;) Thanks for the congrats. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HeroineVirtual deleted...

Can we discuss this on the talk page of Heroine Virtual? I have a lot of reasons why I want this article, and I'd like to hear why it should be deleted. I'm open to suggestions/criticism, but please be open to my reasons as well. Thanks Crh0872 (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the talk page of the article in question. The article is not deleted, I simply proposed deletion based on the criteria indicated in the template. It is your right to remove it in an attempt to establish the requisite notability per WP:CORP and WP:NOTE. If you cannot, then most likely a user other than me will nominate it for WP:AFD. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 09:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Kabbalah

Please tell me why you deleted the article Scientific Kabbalah. Have you read any of the article?Johnshoemaker (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally did not delete the page in question - I nominated it for WP:SD because it met the criteria for nonsense G1. Administrators have the ability to delete pages, not general editors. Scientific Kabbalah contains the deletion record for the page if you wish to bring it up to the admin. Also, you go always take it to WP:DRV. Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous.

Thanks Pedro : Chat for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Template:X1...X9

Hey Wisdom,

I just found this out the hard way, after mistakenly blocking an IP for playing with these templates. Turns out, that's what they're for (read the text in the template). Since I saw you'd reverted and warned several IP's before me on these, I thought you could learn from my mistake. Better egg on my face than egg on mine and yours both. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was an issue before, however what the user is doing (and this is now the 4th dynamic IP) is blanking the entire template, removing the heading and everything - and doing it on purpose. This is vandalism. They know this proceeded to vandalize my user and talk page repeatedly: This is just one example [1]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, happening to me too now. Would you like your pages semiprotected for a while? --barneca (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My user page is already semi-protect because of this user. : ) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before hearing from you, I asked about this at WP:AN (last thread, too lazy to link to section). What do you think about a resetting bot, like the sandbox has? --barneca (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I felt it more appropriate, I also copy and pasted the conversation to WP:ANI - I want to see what those admins have to say about the proper action. I don't want to keep unblanking or unnecessarily warning these vendetta wielding IPs. Reply there as well if you wish. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to Wisdom89

For Cloverdale Elementary School I would say that it does not assert notability per WP:SCHOOL because it is an elementary school and not a secondary school. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, good point. I'll have to look into it a little deeper. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and nominate it for WP:AfD. I'll probably chime in once I've done some searching. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited's RFA

.:

Thank you!

:.

Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA.

To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind."

Once again, thanks for placing your trust in me to help the community. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

For you!

User:Pedro/Admin Coaching if you would like to add input under next steps or discuss anything you feel I've missed or wrongly identified. Pedro : Chat 08:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yeah. I thought I had him, so I pressed revert about 20 times. And when it successfully loaded, I smiled :) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article building

I've been trying to decide how to measure this. What criteria do you use? Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally like to see moderate to heavy editorial contributions to articles (i.e consistently ranging in the double digits, or minorly in triple) when using the count tool. This is just one example. Additionally, I like to see a reflection of those heavily contributed to articles in the talk section. This convinces me that the candidate is dealing with potential issues, dispute resolutions, problems, and general consensus building for said articles. High mainspace edit counts (a 1000-1500 let's say) with extremely low contributions numbers under tools (e.g just a few articles where there's been at most 15-20 edits) usually means the user is reverting minor edits or undoing vandalism. This is why I often refer to my "balance" criteria. I hope that wasn't too convoluted. If you require further clarification, I would be more than happy to oblige. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not too convoluted. I'm over thimomg the problem. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sbkbg

People are allowed to remove warnings from their own Talk pages (unless it's an IP). It's considered that if they removed them, they've read them. Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but in this particular case the user doesn't appear to be acknowledging them. heh Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's learning, he's starting to dialogue with me. Corvus cornix_talk 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, i wasn't referring to "RASS", i was referring to "RAAS" which does re-direct to that article, see here. So, i believe the tag should be restored.-- LaNicoya •Talk• 04:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it might be more appropriate to create a disambiguation page for the actual acronyms. I honestly don't believe anyone is going to mistake one article for the other. However, I will not remove the template again. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverdale SD

Thanks for reinstating the tag: I suspected we could come to a meeting of the minds on that one.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 06:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question

WFAL so i think we haved solved COI and verifiablility. What is the difference to this article and the almost 400 others under the categoy of college radio stations. I have provided secondary sources. I don't want to argue with you, I just need some advice to save this article, one that has existed for 3 years--Sbkbg (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sock

Thanks, long story. It comes in handy. Dloh cierekim 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Collective Punishment

Please see my response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle oops

I thought you might like to see this. Sometimes Twinkle notices over notices. Maybe we should create a new banner, "You have lots of new messages!" ;-D Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 04:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh, yeah nice catch - You'd think there would be a patch, fix, or feature to take care of the overlapping or redundant messages/tagging from using Twinkle. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a bit of a sore point with me ever since I started using TW. I'll drop AzaToth a note and see if he can add something. Keep patrolling! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 04:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, keep patrolling yourself! : ). Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

For adding "useless trivia" to Snakes & Arrows 76.108.224.197 (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary - it's not a crime - see WP:TRIVIA. Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1234567890987654321abc

You reported 1234567890987654321abc (talk · contribs) to WP:UAA stating that it's a confusing name. Do you know of user who might be confused with this name? Or is it just that it's a big number that makes it confusing? —EncMstr 23:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to remove that username from UAA and drop a message on the user's talk page. It's not really confusing. Thanks for the message though. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your work and dedication on Neil Peart. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition dude! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LIVECHAT Software

Hello Wisdom89, I made some changes in the article, please also see my response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LIVECHAT_Software. Thank you for all your help and sharing your experience. Klim3k (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 February 2008 (GMT+1)

Thanks for dropping me the message. I'll swing by the article to take a look at the sources a bit later when I get home from work. If they are notable, independent, and reliable. I will close the AfD. Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clonazepam

Hello Wisdom89, You recently reverted an edit on the Clonazepam page. The quotation was changed from

Although benzodiazepines are valuable in the treatment of anxiety disorders, they carry a high potential for physical and psychological dependence...

to

Although benzodiazepines are invaluable in the treatment of anxiety disorders, they carry a high potential for physical and psychological dependence...

The latter sentence makes slightly more sense as if something is invaluable it is almost essential, yet in the latter part of the sentence denies the claim that it is invaluable. The use the word valuable allows for this and makes a suitable compromise.

I've reverted the edit. If you wish to make any comments on it. Can you please reply here Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I was in favor of using the term invaluable - as it implies a necessity and essentiality, as opposed to simply "valuable". I honestly don't mind which word is used though. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Stalin

regarding J Stalin, would you comment on BLP issue, your advice has been ignored and i will not edit war.Icamepica (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notice you placed on my talk page.

You placed this notice on my talk page, but not on User:Til Eulenspiegel's page.

Please read the discussion, and this users other "edits" WP:Civility WP:POV. Belligerence and harassment to hammer in a POV is not the way to create an encyclopedia. Sumerophile (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to participate in a discussion, this topic was brought to WP:ANI. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice to know this! Sumerophile (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hello, I was just overlooking Deacon's RfA. Just as a clarification, my comment under your #5 oppose was actually directed at #4... sorry for the confusion! :) --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good : ) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parisista

Thanks for the tag:-) rudra (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime : ). Didn't want anybody tagging it for deletion hastily. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That fast? Anyway, I think I'll detour from my original plan and add a reference, first thing:-) rudra (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sumerophile

Hi, thanks for responding to my ANI request yesterday; however I didn't expect Sumerophile to suddenly show an interest in compromise; he has now once again blanket-reverted my referenced version of the footnote at History of Sumer and replaced it with his uncited OR, on a spurious and specious pretext. You mentioned warning him about removal of references; exactly which template should I use? Otherwise until more editors get involved I don't see any way out of this indefinite back-and-forth. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom86, I discussed this on the WP:ANI board, which you referred me to! Sumerophile (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but I am currently observing your removal of cited text and replacing it with what looks like original research and uncited material. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-quoting an author, in the world that I know, is not a citation.

Nor is this what "looks like" original research, there is simply a complete lack of archaeological evidence for this, which is what the sentence says. This sentence was there before me, and worded to suggest an (unreferenced) Ararat location for Aratta before I NPOVed the wording, and started this trouble.

Trying to locate Aratta, which this user is trying to do, is very Original Research, given that there is simply no archeological evidence, anywhere, that this place ever existed outside of the myth that mentioned it.

I can definitely reference the myth for you. [2]

Sumerophile (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now Til Eulenspiegel used his spuriously placed citation tags to remove 1) the disclaimer for Ararat (but not the disclamer for SW Iran), and the statement that Aratta is unattested, without needing to provide the missing evidence for its existance. What do we do, Wisdom86? Sumerophile (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is a "spuriously placed citation tag"? Every single statement on wikipedia needs to be verifiable, and it appears that these statements you keep adding are not, Sumerophile. I could, by policy, simply remove them, but first I give you a chance to back them up with references, which you have so far showed no interest in doing, and indeed continue even after all the warnings, to delete the valid requests for citation rather than find cites for them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the burden falls on the person insisting on defending uncited claims to provide the necessary sources when they are challenged. Per WP:V and WP:RS, suspicious statements may be expunged unless the other editor can provide reliable sources to buttress the claims. Removing citation needed tags is not proper etiquette. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When someone wants to locate a place for which there is no evidence that it existed, they need to provide that evidence. This is a case of citation tags being placed selectively to promote a POV. In fact, when I just now sourced the myth itself, he moved the tag. Sumerophile (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not looking for a link to the Aratta myth, are you really just playing dense? What I am asking for is just one reliable cite that says Armenia really lacks the "minerals" mentioned in the myth - like lapis lazuli, AKA "Armenian stone". I have found plenty of sources that contradict you on that point, but I have been patiently asking for just one that supports you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not cited anyone who says Ararat, or Armenia, actually has lapis lazuli, or lapis armenus for that matter, which is not the same as lapis lazuli. And if you cite lapis armenus, you will also need to show that it was used in Sumer. Sumerophile (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the statement that needs a citation is the one in the article, User:Sumerophile. Please stop wasting our time with games. If you cannot cite this claim to any kind of source, it will soon go, per WP:V. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm not bombarded by new messages all the time, I suggest taking this back to one another's talk page. I can comment there if you'd like, but I can't have two people arguing here : ) You understand. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I won't use this page except to address you from now on... I had first gone to ANI in hopes of attracting an admin, and I thought you were one. Some kind of action should have been taken here long ago -- every time I remove the OR claims, he still returns them, without a valid source, ad infinitum, so all I can do is try ANI again next time it happens, I guess. Thanks again for trying to help me explain our important policies on OR, RS, V, etc. but doesn't seem to have made much impression... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom89, the reason your involvement didn't work is because you didn't look into what was going on and you gave the impression of taking sides. Just because someone makes claims on a noticeboard doesn't mean they are not abusing the system. Sumerophile (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Specialist

Give me a couple of minutes, please. I'm working on it...--Arturo57 (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Lobster help

Because you have helped in the reversion of some edits to the article when a consensus has not been reached, would you, perhaps, like to comment on the discussion reguarding said information? Daedalus (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Business-education partnerships and see if your tags can be removed

Hi Wisdom89! You're the only person besides me and the article creator who has edited Business-education partnerships. You tagged it for various issues not long after creation. It turns out it's been written for a class project! (which may be OK because after some iterations I think it's getting to be a reasonable article. See its Talk page). Please take a look at the article and see what you think now. The creator has to finish her assignment by Friday. If you're busy, I'll understand. If you see more issues that need fixing, you could add them to the Talk page. You can also do an AfD if you think the task is hopeless. Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ER

Why do we even keep warning this clown? ➪HiDrNick! 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question - sometimes I wish he/she would just get tired of it. I've brought this to WP:ANI and reported about a dozen IPs to WP:AIV. Seems like an uphill battle. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to WP:RFPP on a talk page, but this is geting old. ➪HiDrNick! 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you request it, I'll drop a note and endorse it. It really is getting tiresome to say the least. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being stand-up guys and taking care of this. This user reminds me of Ben Franklin's old adage about the definition of insanity. Drmargi (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - I've been knee deep in this like the rest of you, although I do not contribute heavily to the article as a regular editor, I monitor it constantly as it's one of my favorite shows. I've felt the brunt of this anon's vandalism. It's the reason my user page was fully protected. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I am currently on Wikibreak due to real-life duties related to schooling. I will not be active for much of the next two weeks at minimum. I am happy to see you have taken the initiative for the article on burns, although I have yet to review your work. I hopefully will be back here in a jiffy. --Shark face 217 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Artifex Mens Congregatio ( Artistic Minds Society )

It's not mine. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 03:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, the tag was placed simultaneously with the move. It was just an editing conflict that overlapped. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Basketball 110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Categories (video)

While I'm on the Rush-categories topic, I see four videos (Chronicles (video), R30: 30th Anniversary World Tour, Rush in Rio (video), and Through the Camera Eye) which probably should not be categorised as albums. I am however unfamiliar with these particular products... but figured this might be worth a mention nonetheless. WikHead (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work with the burn article, I hereby award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work. --Shark face 217 20:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition Sharkface - I'm gonna continue monitoring it. It really is an important article that still requires additional fleshing out and detail. Cheers dude. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). Even though you opposed my application, I can understand your concerns. But don't worry, I'll go easy using the tools and will not do anything without being certain that I am doing the right thing. - 52 Pickup (deal) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Audience of One (film)‎ . Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Please note that, per the criteria for speedy deletion, a page which consists solely of template tags and infoboxes does not constitute content. Redfarmer (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the article. It does not meet the criteria for A3 SD. That is why I removed it. Also, please be careful when you warn someone with a level 2 or 3. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the page only consists of template tags and infoboxes, it does qualify for A3. And I did note that you are not new. That's why I used a level 2 warning and not a level 1. Please stop removing the speedy tag and let an admin decide. Redfarmer (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not remove it, however, your warning was mechanical and in error. Please be careful/less impulsive when you are warning so that it is for the correct reason. Furthemore, a personal message would have been much less stoic and uninviting. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my butt-in. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. There's nothing more insulting to an established editor then getting one of those templetes plastered on your page. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powers Court

I am not sure why you consider G11 (spam) an inappropriate CSD for this article. The lead starts with the phrase "Powers Court is a quality American Metal trio" and then the article continues with stuff like "This is really a fine band, highly recommended" and numerous other peacock phrases, topped off with the band's own website and myspace as the only references. The notability of this band may or may not be asserted (they do claim to have a label which is usually enough to stave off CSD A7) but this article would have to be completely rewritten to not be promotional. Dethme0w (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proper SD template for a band is A7. Just because it uses flowery language doesn't mean it's an advertisement. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 only applies when the issue is notability. When an article apparently exists solely to promote its subject, regardless of whether that subject is a company, person, group, or band, and would require a total rewrite to become encyclopedic, then G11 is the appropriate tag. Dethme0w (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Surely. I totally understand what you mean about Twinkle, and as I said it does seem like your use it effectively. I would also say now that I am here and dealing with my internet's lag that it probably wouldn't be a horrible idea to achieve your talk page a little more frequently ;). Cheers, SorryGuy Talk 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget oppose

Not sure why he's here. Dloh cierekim 15:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I - I'm suspect of a brand new user with a paucity of edits who makes a single questionable oppose at RfA. I was thinking maybe as an anon he/she had issue with the candidate, but that would go against my nature of assuming good faith. : ) Nevertheless, it matters not. His oppose is void and null. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially as he's been indefblocked. -- Avi (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zedlainian response

In case you were interested :) -- Avi (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always interested : ) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought...

...that I was not supposed to know my way around WP:RFA [3] -- Avi (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

haha, thanks for catching the error in formatting. Now I have sheepishly slink into the shadows :) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of 151.49.52.138

Why did you block this IP? Apart from one problem with Talk:Sandbox, which is easily explained as a mistake, s/he's only been playing where s/he's entitled to. Am I wrong? -- Zsero (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, so I do not have the ability to block any user. However, I did warn and report them to WP:AIV. This IP address is a recurring dynamic IP vandal that blanks sandbox templates. They have been warned repeatedly in the past (and currently). Please check with the blocking administrator if you feel this was in error. Thank you. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With an IP you can't even be sure that it's the same person from one day to the next, on the same IP. How can you possibly know that it's the same person from on IP to another? At least on the same IP the person might have seen a warning. How can they see a warning that was given at a different IP, even if they are the same person? And how exactly were they warned? It's not exactly obvious that one shouldn't completely blank these templates; one has to read the text closely to know that. Shouldn't you AGF? -- Zsero (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is a persistent issue with this IP range 151.49... You can see the sockpuppet case here: [4]. Also, check the history of the various X templates for confirmation. Every IP in this range does the EXACT same thing, with each IP warned, displaying the same ill tempered personal attacks and user page vandalism and then subsequently being blocked after a report to WP:AIV. Regardless, this IP address repeatedly blanked portions of the sandbox templates, was warned three times, and then vandalized a userpage. This is policy. As I mentioned before, you have the right to take it up with the blocking administator. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is why you keep putting vandalism templates on the IPs' talk pages, without explaining what they're doing wrong. I assume your objection is to their not leaving the top line alone, but it's not very obvious that one should do that, and if you never explain one can easily see how this person would become increasingly frustrated and eventually lash out at you. Their edits to your talk page may be uncivil, but it seems to me that so is your abrupt and repeated templating them for vandalism rather than Assuming Good Faith and politely asking them to leave the top line of the sandboxes alone while playing to their hearts' content with the rest. -- Zsero (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I'm not the only person who is/was involved with this IP/s. I assumed good faith in the beginning until it was made clear that the user was vandalizing purposefully. The IPs were all temp blocked, and, of course, not by me. It's not a isolated single incident "lash out" if it's the same personal attack each time after inexorably repeating the same exact behavior over and over again after several warnings. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

I saw your comment on your edit summary removing an edit I'd made, and thought, "Doc, it's cold in here...." :-) Bearian (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand how my edit "read" now. Happy editing! Bearian (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bullplop

I'm unclear as to why you reverted my edit. Was it because it was unsourced? If so, can we just go ahead and delete most of everything on Wikipedia?

I guess if someone doesn't take Wikipedia completely seriously, their posts are deleted for no real reason. This is quite a system. 24.147.175.186 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because the section is a bunch of neologisms surrounding the term bullshit - and yes it was unreferenced. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the section being a bunch of neologisms have to do with anything? You must be quite an expert on bullshit if you can somehow explain to me how bullshark, bullhonkery, bovine stercus, and horse hockey are more valid than bullplop. And my God! Not one of those are referenced! They could all be fake! By that logic, we should strike them all from the record, right, comrade? 24.147.175.186 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms and protologisms should be avoided whenever possible on Wikipedia. As for the section, yes, in my opinion it should be expunged. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could make that argument for much of the useless nonsense pervading Wikipedia. It seems more than a bit arbitrary that with all of the ridiculous, unsourced nonsense on that page that mine was the only post removed. If you think it should be expunged, why not do it? Be a visionary and get rid of every stupid thing on Wikipedia that you find. Don't completely half-ass it, or, alternatively, remove my post only because of past posts I've made, only to hide behind the flimsy excuses of "neologism" and "unsourced." There's really no need or call to high-horse me with vocabulary and rhetoric. 24.147.175.186 (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to watch your tone - you're bordering on incivility. Looking at your talk page, it seems you've already been warned repeatedly for your edits to the article. Don't be snarky. I'm now done with this conversation, cheers. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Clause I don't understand

What do you mean by this ? I read the article but i don't see how that applies to me or my situation. I thought an Rfa has to be there until it expires ?

Ozzaroni (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you gave states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The Snow Clause "rule", I find, is preventing me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, therefore you and I should ignore it. Its keeping me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia because its not giving me a chance to become an admin. You are guessing i won't become admin because of the way it "usually works" and because you find that i am unskilled. Therefore you are countering yourself by introducing be to the 'snow clause' and the WI:1469 ? that you just gave me, the "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Ozzaroni (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The snow ball clause is never used lightly. A user doesn't merely guess before acting on it. Your RfA was not going to succeed, trust me. In such cases, nonadmins, admins, and bureaucrats can close it before the time of expiration. This also goes for WP:XfDs and other discussions that involved consensus. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom89, I wished to contact you regarding the above closure of the Ozzaroni RFA. In general, those who have participated in an RFA (almost especially if they have opposed) should generally not close RFAs per the snow closure clause. This should really be left to another user (or a bureaucrat) and the SNOW closure clause shouldn't have been acted upon so soon in the RFA in my opinion, generally we wait until 11-12 people have given their support, oppose or neutral. By that time consensus be apparent and SNOW can be used accurately. Hope this helps, Rudget (?) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much. You appear to have done everything else 'by the book' as it were, and you presented a good argument in the oppose section. You can do it in the future, and you appear to learn well - with an increasinly coherent understanding of policy and guidelines. You'll do well. Regards, Rudget (?) 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Lesson learnt, I'm sure Pedro : Chat 10:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]